This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
It has been estimated that about 30% of the campuses across the country have both a counseling center and medical-psychiatric unit in their structure of services. In fact the percentage may be higher. This estimate is based on old data and data restricted to colleges and universities in the western United States. (Banning and Aulepp, 1971).
Whatever the percentage, the question can be raised, "Why have both?" In times of tight budgets for most student service structures, isn't having both services on campus a duplication of effort? Couldn't one service eliminate the problems associated with coordination of often competing services? Finally, wouldn't students find the accessing of mental health and counseling services a bit easier with one door to choose from rather than two?
It is not the intent of this brief article to answer either "yes" or "no" to the question of whether a campus should maintain both a counseling service and a mental healthpsychiatric clinic. It will be suggested, however, that most campuses still maintain both because of a belief in the "myth" that the two services are fundamentally different. A more useful methodology for making the judgment of "one or both" will be presented called "domain analysis."
Are They Different?
In the 1971 and 1972 WICHE studies by Banning and Aulepp, the following areas were assessed: number of facilities, staffing patterns, budget and salary data, program activities, staff time, in-service activities, and student utilization. A summary of the findings indicated that counseling centers were more often found within the campus environment, they offered more of a variety of services, and generally operated with a larger staff and budget than did the campus mental health center. But the similarities found in all other areas were more striking than these differences. The current justification for having both services cannot be built on the fact they are fundamentally different. The data do not support such a conclusion. Perhaps the justification is built on the notion that since one unit is medically oriented, they must see a more ill student than the counselors and psychologists see at the campus counseling center. Campus mental health professions in both services know that with but a few exceptions their clientele are more alike than different. This "myth" of difference is further reinforced by the fact that the use of drugs in the treatment program is more likely to occur in the mental health-psychiatric setting than in the counseling center setting. Even this difference is probably more reflective of the training backgrounds of the therapists than differences in client problems or severity of concerns.
Domain Analysis
Interorganizational therorists in the health field are building a set of principles around the concept of domain. The domain of a service agency such as a campus mental health unit can be defined by (a) diseases or problems covered, (b) populations served, and (c) services rendered (Levine and White, 1971). Important to inter-organizational cooperation is domain "consensus" which is defined as interorganizational agreements concerning respective goals and functions. The theory suggests unless there can be some consensus on what roles are to be allocated to which organization, competition rather than cooperation would be the expected outcome. (Reid, 1970)
Certainly, domain theory and analysis is more complex than the brief outline just given, but even this cursory treatment of the theory raises some interesting questions regarding "both" services on campus.
Questions
What are the inter-organizational agreements between counseling centers and medical-psychiatric units? Are there substantial differences in the problems covered by the different services? Is the population served the same? Are there differences in services rendered? Is the only uniqueness the "myth"?
One could conclude the "myth" has been powerful and important, and it has served to keep each service believing they are operating in seperate domains while in reality the domain overlap (domain poisoning?) is considerable. Is there a need for both? Maybe-maybe not! To answer that question a thorough domain analysis is needed. The two services should not be justified as being distinct on the basis of an outlived myth. Under this justification the need for both is somewhat dubious.
The following quote is from Allan Wicker (1979), an ecological psychologist. He writes: "As I recall, the photograph was taken in a small Iowa town...(this)...human interest photograph of a high school boy playing trombone in a pep band at a basketball game. The interesting feature of the photo was what the boy was wearing - a basketball uniform. Apparently responding to the needs of both the band and the basketball team, he had moved from the court to play with the band during halftime." Wicker 1979 page 70. '
The message is clear. The school was so small that the boy had to be both in the band and on the basketball team. He was involved in learning two skills because of the environmental condition of size, or more precisely because of number of persons per opportunity.
A similar phenomena can be seen in most small rural communities. Baseball is often played, but often there are not enough players to make two full teams. "Work up" is often the method used to solve this problem of not enough people. In "work up", at every out a player moves up one position on the field. Each player has the task of working up to the preferred position of batter. Playing in this environment each player has the opportunity to experience each position on the field from catcher to right field.
This concept of persons per opportunity can be translated to higher education. It has been suggested that "student involvement on campus is like five people changing a flat tire-one gets involved and does the work and the other four stand and watch.
The phenomena of the number of persons per opportunity is technically known as Manning Theory. These are the three conditions of manning.
1. Condition of undermanning - not enough people to carry out in a smooth manner the essential activities of the setting.
2. Condition of optimal manning - the number of people present is the exact number needed to operate at the most efficient level.
3. Condition of overmanning - more people present in the setting than can be accommodated. (Wicker, 1979)
To continue with this illustration let me contrast some of the major differences associated with undermanned settings vs. overmanned settings. In the undermanned setting the following occurs: (Wicker, 1979)
"Persons more frequently serve in responsible positions, engage in actions that are difficult for them, engage in activities that are important to the setting, engage in a wide range of different activities, see themselves as being important to the setting, feel responsible for the setting, work hard to support the setting, feel more versatile, less sensitive to and less evaluative of individual differences, see themselves more often in terms of the jobs they do, and less often in terms of personality characteristics."
In the overmanned setting the following has been found:
"People perform tasks in a perfunctory, lackadaisical manner, there is a high degree of specialization, little concern among persons for the quality of functioning of the setting as a whole, few efforts by persons to help others improve their performance, conversations in the setting focus on personalities and idiosyncrasies of people, relatively low selfesteem, little sense of competence and versatility."
Currently, much discussion is taking place regarding "involvement in learning." The points made during these discussions are essentially suggesting the need to move from an overmanned setting to an undermanned or more nearly an optimal setting.
References: Wicker, Allan W. (1979) An Introduction to Ecological Psychology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Architect Sim Van der Ryan predicted a new kind of environmental planning which would include the concept of user-generated design. (See Campus Ecologist Vol. I No. 3)
The Chronicle of Higher Education (August 14,1985) carried a story illustrating user-generated design "Clarke College Breaking Ground to Recapture the Mid-1800's. The following quote came from the article:
'The architects set up a studio on campus,'. . .'They did their first conceptual drawings here in one week and posted the drawings. People from the community all came in and made comments, and the architects will tell you that was exciting for them, because they got some very exciting ideas from people. By end of the week we had a real sense of direction about what we wanted to do.... it worked very well. . . . Vickrey, Ovresat, and Awsumb went to great lengths to be sure that what they designed was really what we are rather than the work of an architect coming in there and doing his or her thing.... Afterwards, I heard students saying, 'I suggested this, and they bought it.' It was participatory architecture." (Page 3. By Lawrence Biemiller quoting Sister Catherine Dunn, President of Clarke College)
References:
Banning, J.H. and Aulepp, L. (1971) University Community Mental Health Services Survey (Reported in Monographs No. l thru No.3) Boulder, Colo. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Banning, J.H. and Aulepp, L. (1972) Campus Mental Health Continuing Education Survey (Reported in Monograph No. 4) Boulder, Colo. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Levine, S. and White, P.E. (1971) "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Inter-organizational Relations." Administrative Science Quarterly March, page 597.
Reid, W. (1970) "Inter-organizational Cooperation: A Review and Critique of Current Theory" In Interorganizational Research in Health: Conference Proceedings New York City, January, page 89.
Jack R. Gibb (1978) postulates trust as the key to the improvement of the human condition. In his work, Trust: A New View of Personal and Organizational Development, he describes the construct of "TORI" (Trust Level) theory. The theory elements to this construct are: (T) trusting, (O) opening, (R) realizing, and (I) interdepending.
All professionals who are concerned with improving the human condition through intentional social and physical design should find the book of interest. The following excerpts are particularly important to the campus ecology perspective:
* "Mutual design of a high-quality environment is a high-trust way to do therapy, teach school, minister a church, govern a country, parent a home, and manage a business." (page 50)
* "The following are six ways of describing a quality environment. . .
l. High trust level. . .
2. Low constraint. . .
3. Optimization of the . . . discovery processes . . .
4. Self-esteem. . .
5. Range of enrichment. . .
6. Reduced defensiveness . . . (pages 50 and 51)
*Gibb also describes the Environmental-Quality Scale. The scale is a ten phase scale that can serve as a "developmental stage" approach to the environment. The ten phases in ascending order are as follows:
I Punitive
II Autocratic
III Benevolent
IV Advisory
V Participative
VI Emergent
VII Organic
VIII Holistic
IX Transcendent
X Cosmic
Each phase of the scale is described by (I) its definitive nature, (2) key function best nurtured, (3) key limitation of the phase, (4) primary fear reduced, (5) focus of energy, and (6) ascendent want and secondary want sustaining the phase. Gibb also discusses the use of the Environmental-Quality Scale ". . . as a frame of reference to diagnose the system, propose action programs, and improve the quality of life. . ." in a variety of environments.
Reference:
Gibb, Jack R. (1978). Trust: A New View of Personal and Organizational Development. Los Angeles: The Guild of Tutors Press.
Alland, A. (1972). The human imperative. New York: Columbia University Press.
Altman, I. (1970). Territorial behavior in humans: An analysis of the concept. In L. Pastalan & D.H. Carson (Eds.), Spatial behavior of older people. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Wayne State Press.
Archea, J. (1977). The place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 116-138.
Ardrey, Robert. (1966). The territorial imperative. New York: Dell Publishing Company.
Ardrey, Robert. (1970) The social contract. New York: Atheneum.
Barker, Roger. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Baumm, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies of social density. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum
Calhoun, J.B., (1962). Population density and social pathology. Scientific American, 206, 139-148.
Caplow, T. & Forman R. (1950). Neighborhood interaction in a homogeneous community. American Sociological Review, 15, 357-366.
Edney, J. (1974). Human territoriality.-Psycological Bulletin, 81, 959-975.
Edney, J. (1976). Human territorities: Comment of functional properties. Environment and Behavior, 8, 31-48.
Esser, A.H., (1970). From territorial image to cultural environment. Celoof en Wetenschap (Amsterdam). 68, 89-98.
Esser, A.H., (1970). Aggression, dominance, hierarchy, and territoriality. Encyclopedia International. New York: Grolier.
Esser, A.H., (Ed.). (1971). Behavior and environment: The use of space by animals and men. New York Plerium Press.
Goffman, Erving (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Hall, Edward T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Hall, Edward T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Fawcett.
Hediger, H. (1961). Evolution of territorial behavior. In S.L. Washburn (Ed.), The social life of early man. New York: Wenner-Gren.
Klopfer, P. (1968). From Ardrey to altruism: A discourse on the biological basis of human behavior. Behavioral Science, 13, 399-401.
Ley, D. & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial Ñ markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, 491-505.
Lipman, A. (1967). Chairs as territory. New Society, 20, 564-566.
Schroeder, C. (1980). Territoriality: An imperative for personal development and residence education. In D.A. DeCoster and P. Mable (Eds.), Personal Education and Community Development in College Residence Halls. Cincinnati, Ohio: American College Personnel Association.
Sommer, Robert. (1966). Man's proximate environment. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 59-70.
Sommer, Robert. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Sommer, Robert. (1972). Design Awareness. San Francisco: Rinehart.
Stanford, M. & Scott, M. (1967). Territoriality: A neglect sociological dimension. Social Problems, XV, 236-249.
Stea, David. (1965). Space, territory and human movement. Landscape 15, Autumn, 13- 16.
Theodorson, George A. (1961). Studies in human ecology, New York: Harper and Row.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.